This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

A tale of two campaigns: before the debate and after

Since early on, neither side has been able to make the public see the other as they want them to be seen.

Andrea Horwath, Kathleen Wynne and Tim Hudak. The recent leaders debate may prove to have an important effect, writes Ken Dryden.
(MARK BLINCH / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

By Ken DrydenSpecial to the Star

Fri., June 6, 2014

This election is about two campaigns — BD, before the debate, and AD, after the debate. Or is it?

BD, through the clutter of announcements and headlines, the campaign for the three main parties was about jobs and how to create them — by reducing costs, lowering taxes and cutting public sector jobs, to eliminate the deficit to encourage investment, to make companies more competitive, as Tim Hudak and the PCs believe. Or by improving education and training, roads and technology — that is, improving our human and physical infrastructure — to encourage investment, to make companies more competitive, as Kathleen Wynne and the Liberals and to some extent Andrea Horwath and the NDP believe.

More fundamentally, the campaign was about a basic question: Are governments useless, is every tax dollar collected and spent a dollar down the sewer, or do governments and taxes play some significant role?

Stephen Harper won the 2006 federal election mostly because, after 11 years of Liberal governments and with the daily testimony of Liberal corruption from the Gomery Commission ringing in voters’ ears, it seemed “time for a change.” But Harper took his anti-government, tax-cutting platform as his mandate, and has governed according to it.

He challenged the opposition Liberals and NDP — you say you believe government and taxes might have a useful function, prove you believe it. Reverse the GST/HST, increase taxes, because that’s the only way you’re going to be able to pay for your cherished Kelowna (aboriginal justice), Kyoto (climate change) and kids (child care).

He put them, particularly the Liberals, into a corner where they had to believe or hate themselves for not quite believing. When they equivocated, as he knew they would, he laughed at them.

Hudak sees the world as Harper does. Wynne believes government matters.

They are out of central casting. Hudak, dark hair, a Nixonian hint of 5 o’clock shadow, in public faux-friendly, faux-spontaneous. When he talks about the impact of his proposed program cuts, wanting to sound sympathetic about the pain they will cause, he seems to enjoy his message too much.

Wynne, open, earnest, disciplined, like a school teacher, oozes empathy. She feels for everyone.

But since the early days of the campaign — BD — neither side has been able to make the public see the other entirely as they want them to be seen.

Wynne was a prominent member of a government that ended in a shambles, with premier Dalton McGuinty’s sudden resignation and the revelations of scandal that followed. It didn’t matter that Wynne wasn’t personally connected to the wrongdoing, she was there. It doesn’t matter that in her approach to politics she seems different, even if she is. Somebody has to pay the price, and what price is paid unless the Liberals — and Wynne — loses?

Sometimes you need to cut off your nose even if it means spiting your face. But to many voters who want nothing more than to punish the Liberals, by presenting herself day after day as a nice, respectful person, Wynne distracts them — makes them almost forget. This was BD.

Hudak had been the bigger surprise. Things changed for him when he announced the PC’s platform. It wasn’t the good news of his million-jobs pledge. It was the bad news of his 100,000 public-service jobs cuts. Much public and media outcry followed. Instead of backtracking, he went on the offensive. He sounded different. He looked different. Finally unleashing the inner Tim Hudak, finally comfortable in his own skin, the faux is gone. He is enjoying himself.

Wynne’s platform is unabashedly liberal. To PCs, it is “tax and spend” Liberal. Hudak’s platform is unabashedly conservative. To Liberals, it is “slash and burn” Conservative. By being what they both are supposed to be, Wynne and Hudak had left no oxygen in the room for the NDP. Their message to voters was clear: this is what I believe; this is who I am; this is how I will govern.

Now it is AD.

In the debate, Wynne had the first question. She was asked what she has been asked from the moment she became premier 16 months ago: on the gas-plant cancellations, why did you sign off? Why didn’t you say no? Her only answer: We were/I was wrong. I am sorry. I/we will do better.

Starting on her heels, she never really got off them.

Hudak seemed comfortable (though some who watched may be grateful he doesn’t have five kids and three grandmas). Horwath was a capable presence. Hudak was seen as the winner; Horwath didn’t hurt herself.

Judgment on Wynne was less harsh than it might have been. To the media and public, it seems, she confirmed what they already understood about her. She would go back on her heels, would be embarrassed, would flounder with such a question. She wouldn’t be able to answer a question that was unanswerable, and wouldn’t sacrifice her decency in the try.

The debate isn’t likely to change the campaign, only to make clearer what it was. It is a campaign — BD and AD — that has made things easier and harder for Ontario voters.

Many self-identified conservatives have said in recent years they would vote PC, were it not for Hudak.

Many self-identified liberals have said they would vote Liberal, tax and spend and all, if the tax and spend was purposeful, if there was a real liberal to vote for.

In Wynne, and in the new Hudak, voters have got what they said they wanted. That’s the easier part. The harder part: they know where their leaders stand; now they need to know where they stand. Truly. Neither leader is likely to make a mid-mandate conversion. As much as many want this election to be about gas plants or unlikeability, this is about now. This is about the future. No pretending, no fooling ourselves.

The voters — we — will get the Ontario we vote for. Wynne’s or Hudak’s, what Ontario do we want?

Ken Dryden is a former Member of Parliament and goaltender for the Montreal Canadiens. He teaches at McGill and the University of Calgary.

The Toronto Star and thestar.com, each property of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, One Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5E 1E6. You can unsubscribe at any time. Please contact us or see our privacy policy for more information.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com